Fulfillment of Prophecy in the New Testament

[Harel13]

I on the other hand am very weary about traditions regarding whether people held them centuries and millenniums before now because they are difficult to trace and verify. Like Christians talk about the early church fathers but I struggle to find evidence for when they were written. Traditions hold them as useful but I have no idea how they were compiled.

Hah, well that's how it is with ancient texts. I personally see no reason to really believe that academics present a real, unbiased position. Everyone has a bias.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Depends what he's claiming. He could be one of those people who seek to differentiate between the Maimonides that wrote the Guide to the Perplexed and the Maimonides who wrote the MT codex, ignoring the halachic codex and focusing on the "enlightened" philosopher, not a pagan barbarian who believes in mutilating babies and whatnot.

That's utter ignorance and denial of the facts that Maimonides was a God-fearing, Torah-keeping Jew.

I didn't get the impression that he was antagonistic to Maimonides. Sommer was just saying that Maimonides had a different view of of the nature of God compared to older Jewish Scholars.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Hah, well that's how it is with ancient texts. I personally see no reason to really believe that academics present a real, unbiased position. Everyone has a bias.

I agree with that. Which is why I like relying on the evidence at hand. Many academics make claims without actually having evidence regarding ancient texts based on their preconceived notions about the narrative of history.

 

[Harel13]

In Sommers book, he is speaking regarding the traditions before Maimonides. So he says that Maimonides believed certain things about God which modern Jewish belief can be traced back to. But there were Jewish Scholars before him who believed differently. Maimonides was born in muslim conquered Spain so Sommer suspects that his view of God was influenced by the muslims because the earlier Jewish scholars had different beliefs.

No one ever has said that all Jewish rabbis have always agreed with each other, so I'm not sure what his case is exactly.
Influenced by Muslims? I'm weary of saying that.
Recently, someone sent me a table showing that a certain idea written by Rabbeinu Bechayey may have originated from the earlier Sufis. I pointed out that more likely, the Sufis got it from the Jews, because an even older version exists in Tannaic texts.

 

[Harel13]

I didn't get the impression that he was antagonistic to Maimonides. Sommer was just saying that Maimonides had a different view of of the nature of God compared to older Jewish Scholars.

Doesn't have to seem antagonistic to still have a bias. For what? Possibly to show that Jews copied some of their ideas from Muslims and such.

 

[Harel13]

I agree with that. Which is why I like relying on the evidence at hand. Many academics make claims without actually having evidence regarding ancient texts based on their preconceived notions about the narrative of history.

Exactly.

 

[Samael_Khan]

No one ever has said that all Jewish rabbis have always agreed with each other, so I'm not sure what his case is exactly.
Influenced by Muslims? I'm weary of saying that.
Recently, someone sent me a table showing that a certain idea written by Rabbeinu Bechayey may have originated from the earlier Sufis. I pointed out that more likely, the Sufis got it from the Jews, because an even older version exists in Tannaic texts.

That is a good point. His case is that Jewish rabbis did have different views. His main case regarding the Tanakh is that Ancient Israel Started off Henotheistic and then later on developed a hardline stance on there only being one God. He also comments on its affect on the development of the Trinity but I haven't heard his argument for that yet. In which case Maimonides probably got his interpretation very much from those later books.

So for instance he would point to scriptures in which case God (his name) appears as a man and speaks to Abraham before destroying Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Doesn't have to seem antagonistic to still have a bias. For what? Possibly to show that Jews copied some of their ideas from Muslims and such.

True.

 

[Harel13]

That is a good point. His case is that Jewish rabbis did have different views. His main case regarding the Tanakh is that Ancient Israel Started off Henotheistic and then later on developed a hardline stance on there only being one God. He also comments on its affect on the development of the Trinity but I haven't heard his argument for that yet. In which case Maimonides probably got his interpretation very much from those later books.

I recently argued on a similar topic with an RF Christian. He claimed that the verses in the Tanach prove that at least until Jesus's time, everyone agreed that god is a Trinity. Post-Jesus, and culminating with Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith, this was changed. He also routinely suggested that Maimonides basically said that God made a mistake in His choice of words in the Tanach.

 

[Harel13]

So for instance he would point to scriptures in which case God (his name) appears as a man and speaks to Abraham before destroying Sodom and Gomorrah.

Not much different from the view that the Torah was written by several different people, during several different periods.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I recently argued on a similar topic with an RF Christian. He claimed that the verses in the Tanach prove that at least until Jesus's time, everyone agreed that god is a Trinity. Post-Jesus, and culminating with Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith, this was changed. He also routinely suggested that Maimonides basically said that God made a mistake in His choice of words in the Tanach.

OK. So that is Trinitarians reading into the text. That isn't even what Sommer is saying.

The guy who claimed that must start reading Maimonides works to see whether it is true.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Not much different from the view that the Torah was written by several different people, during several different periods.

I don't see how the God appearing to Abraham point relates to the Torah being written by several different authors.

Although that point they make about the Torah is very weird and I don't know how they split it between Deuteronomical Texts, Yahvist texts, priestly texts etc. It seems like they are reading their ideas into the texts whereas God being the man who speaks to Abraham is a straight forward reading unless there are more shenanigans being done to the text by Christians. The scholars also do not seem to account for the torah being written over years by one person but their writing style naturally changing. It is a very weird argument on their part.

 

[Harel13]

OK. So that is Trinitarians reading into the text. That isn't even what Sommer is saying.

I said it was similar. Sommer holds that view that Jews used to be henotheistic. I don't see any grounds for that. They moved from Monotheism to Polytheism and vice verse.

The guy who claimed that must start reading Maimonides works to see whether it is true.

He said it based on on the Second Principle of Faith. I brought him the entire principle, both in Hebrew and English, explained how the Hebrew language works, but he still, of course, didn't accept my explanation.

 

[Harel13]

I don't see how the God appearing to Abraham point relates to the Torah being written by several different authors.

Saying that God may have had some sort of physical body at some point because part of the Torah says x and then later "suddenly" He doesn't have a body and therefore that means y about the "evolving beliefs" of Jews is similar to saying that usage of different names for God spread out in the Tanach points to different Jewish cults from different periods.

It seems like they are reading their ideas into the texts whereas God being the man who speaks to Abraham is a straight forward reading unless there are more shenanigans being done to the text by Christians

Of course they are.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I said it was similar. Sommer holds that view that Jews used to be henotheistic. I don't see any grounds for that. They moved from Monotheism to Polytheism and vice verse.

I would have to check out his arguments further to consider his evidence.

He said it based on on the Second Principle of Faith. I brought him the entire principle, both in Hebrew and English, explained how the Hebrew language works, but he still, of course, didn't accept my explanation.

No surprise there.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Saying that God may have had some sort of physical body at some point because part of the Torah says x and then later "suddenly" He doesn't have a body and therefore that means y about the "evolving beliefs" of Jews is similar to saying that usage of different names for God spread out in the Tanach points to different Jewish cults from different periods.

Actually Sommer is pointing out that God might actually have a body. He uses the various references in the bible to God's limbs and such, God's representation in Daniel as an old man, and asks the question: why don't people take this literally? Is it on Jewish assumption that it isn't true. Although he doesn't say that the body is physical.

The body appearing before Abraham is also not God's actual body according to him. A part of God's spirit is actually in the body but the body isn't fully God.

 

[Harel13]

Actually Sommer is pointing out that God might actually have a body. He uses the various references in the bible to God's limbs and such, God's representation in Daniel as an old man, and asks the question: why don't people take this literally? Is it on Jewish assumption that it isn't true. Although he doesn't say that the body is physical

Sommer, is, of course, free to think what he wants. It does, however, say something, when the vast majority of Jews disagree with him. Now, are there and were there other Jews that held that God is corporeal? Yeah. But the vast majority still disagree.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Sommer, is, of course, free to think what he wants. It does, however, say something, when the vast majority of Jews disagree with him. Now, are there and were there other Jews that held that God is corporeal? Yeah. But the vast majority still disagree.

Does majority make something true though?

 

[Harel13]

Does majority make something true though?

In Judaism, to some extent, yes. But even if not, this notion that academics have that "oh look, I have a degree and those people don't, therefore I'm the smartest and only my view is correct" (yes, I'm exaggerating, having found that I can no longer be sarcastic on RF without some wise guy saying "But! It doesn't say that anywhere!/That guy never said that!") is just dumb. Look, you said it yourself: many academics stuff modern terms and ideas into ancient thought.

 

[Samael_Khan]

In Judaism, to some extent, yes. But even if not, this notion that academics have that "oh look, I have a degree and those people don't, therefore I'm the smartest and only my view is correct" (yes, I'm exaggerating, having found that I can no longer be sarcastic on RF without some wise guy saying "But! It doesn't say that anywhere!/That guy never said that!") is just dumb. Look, you said it yourself: many academics stuff modern terms and ideas into ancient thought.

Yes, but we aren't talking about the academics only, as the academic is appealing to Jewish tradition himself and he is a Jew. So if the old Jewish Scholars and/or Rabbi's are proven to have had a different view, or various views, about the nature of God, all reading the Tanakh, then why can their views not be worth considering and why favour the modern interpretations? Do you guys have a view that current is best?